Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "Nettwerk Music Group, Canada's leading privately owned record label has
joined
the fight against the RIAA's strategy of individual lawsuits.
Nettwerk CEO Terry McBride says 'Suing music fans is not the solution,
it's the problem. Litigation is not "artist development." Litigation is
a deterrent to
creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love. The
current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best
interests.'"

The story as it was told to me was that they were mistakenly arrested. I was too young to see them then, but apparently they had some kind of Hollywood creature department-quality dog dummy that they could "vivisect" on stage, as part of their protest against that kind of practice in the real medical/scientific world. Someone thought it was real, and called the police.

The liberals were completely impotent with 20 more seats and support from the NDP.

The conservatives are in for hell. They can't really form an alliance with any party, and they don't have the position to protect themselves or to maintain legislation which only the conservatives want to push through.

Impotent? Useless? This to me represents the best of all possible worlds with regards to the Conservative Party of Canada in power, or indeed any party.

Thus far we haven't had lawsuits here. You can count on the conservatives to give CRIA the same options as RIAA has in the USA. Conservatives are pretty near the same as the GOP. #1 rule, the most buisness friendly climate possible, and that means friendly to squashing those evil 12 year girls downloading mp3s with massive lawsuits.The political parties are all have a different ratio in favoring the individual/corporation. The conservatives are farthest to the right and will favor corporations the most over

The Canadian Government will first have to remove the Levy that we Canadians are paying on blank CD's. The levy was introduced to help counter act the monetary loss they percieved was going to happen.
We already are paying for our right to download music.
And before people say it is still illegal under copyright, it is not here in Canada as long as you do not use it for profit.

Of course, if those conservatives had actually considered the economic implications of intellectual monopolies, and realized that their actual nature was similar to product taxation, they might come to the conclusion that state supported monopolies are actually not at all "business friendly".

In fact, the concept of the state supported 'intellectual property' has more in common with the idea of state owned means of production than it has with a capitalist free market.

Yeah but saying the Conservatives are furthest to the right of the four parties (the other three being as left or lefter than their their brothers in the U.S. Democratic Party) is not saying much. While visions of socialism or social democracy dance around the heads of the NDP, Bloc, and Liberals, it is visions of mercantilism, in one form or another, that dance about the Conservatives heads.The NDP is probably the party that cares most about consumer's interests in laws being passed, but as usual, it is c

I'm less separatist than I was 15 years ago, I didn't even vote for the Bloc, I try to vote Rhino, Pot or Green depending on the cadidates available but I think the whole province should separate from Céline.

The British Phonographic Industry win a court case [bbc.co.uk] against two file sharers, with Judges handing down interim damages of £1,500 and £5,000 with costs and further full damages to be determined at a later hearing.

I don't know if Michael Geist submitted the link, but he's actually a pretty well known columnist and copyright activist. You should check out michaelgeist.com [michaelgeist.com] for some interesting reading.

Lately there has been a lot about the Canadian election and the brouhaha over the CRIA (the Canadian RIAA) and friends supporting a candidate who was the author of a pro-business copyright bill, but generally it's a pretty interesting blog. And who knows, he may even have contributed to the electoral loss of that candidate, the minister who sponsored the bill, and the government who brought it in.

It does, now. Perhaps the anonymous submitter trusted Geist's reputation enough to predict that? (No, I'm not serious.) But realistically, there's a lot on that page besides the link to the press release.

An expansion on the brouhaha...Sarmite Bulte, a Liberal Party Canidate was defeated in her riding in this mondays' election, possibly in part due to the media (i belive) started by Jack Kapica's column in the Globe and Mail (link [theglobeandmail.com]... actual article about this issue here [globetechnology.com]).

In short, she was previously the Canadian Heritage minister, and she was being wined and dined and donated to by the media industry, and advocating copyright reform that would allow DMCA style C&Ds. She was replaced with an NDP canidat

Small correction: Bulte was not the Minister of Canadian Heritage, she was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, and had chaired the committee that produced a report calling for anti-consumer copyright reforms.

Greubel is accused of having 600 suspected music files on the family computer. The RIAA is targeting nine specific songs, including "Sk8er Boi" by Arista artist Avril Lavigne, a Nettwerk management client. The RIAA has demanded Greubel pay a $9,000 stipulated judgment as a penalty, though it will accept $4,500 should Greubel pay the amount within a specific period of time.

Hmmm....$9000 / 600 = $15 per song! and $4500 / 60 = $7.50 per song if you act now!
I see how this new price model works.

I agree that illegally copied music is, well, illegal. Shouldn't there be a warning, though, so that the individual being sued has the opportunity to legally purchase the songs in question? 600 songs = $600US on iTunes, more or less.

The issue here is mainly that the person was *distributing* these files, not that they merely had them on their hard disk for private listening. Naturally, the damages will be larger for distributing files illegally rather than merely having them.

If piracy is still rampant on P2P networks, and music sales are still down... doesn't that mean that more people are not buying the music that they claim on slashdot and elsewhere that they'd buy to support the band? What is going on with this? If most of the new music is so shitty you cannot buy a CD online for $12-$15 (sorry, most of the time claiming you're forced to pay $20 is bullshit with the internet) then why is piracy still rampant?

Unless... few P2P defenders want to admit that they really have no interest in paying for music that they could otherwise get for free. Look, I despise the RIAA as much as the next guy, but if you're downloading the music of a small band, you're not supporting them. No one will notice that and think "hey this is the next great band" except for maybe the hated RIAA's lawyers if they see a spike in P2P traffic. One of my all time favorite bands, Lacuna Coil, has only combined sold a few hundred thousand copies of their albums, most of which came from Ozzfest 2004, and I fail to see how downloading all of Comalies and their new Karmacode album would help them if I cannot see their shows.

Now that I am out of college, I find myself no longer able to support P2P networks used for this purpose. It's a great file sharing approach that's often spoiled by teens and young adults who do have the money to pay for their music, but won't. The turning point came for me when I saw a few poor metalheads non-chalantly paying $17-$20 at Ozzfest for Comalies, then noticed some of my almost upper class friends in CS had no desire to actually buy Comalies, even though they loved every song on the album.

For every 1 honest P2P user, there are probably 10 who aren't. Don't ever forget that the boom in CD sales with Napster in 1998-2000 corresponded to the dotcom bubble!

> If piracy is still rampant on P2P networks, and music sales are still down... doesn't that mean that more people are not buying the music that they claim on slashdot and elsewhere that they'd buy to support the band?

Possibly there are other people who don't make that claim on Slashdot.

There is a very well hidden non sequitur on your argument. The fact that piracy is increasing doesn't mean that more people are listenning to music. Piracy was almost nonexistent a few years ago, it can (proportionaly) increase a lot and not reach the same amount of people that used to buy CDs.

You're kidding, right? About claiming that piracy didn't exist a few years ago?

You think people were't sharing music a few years ago? Recording songs from radio broadcasts? Ripping music from CDs? I would guess you are probably about 13 years old. This kind of thing has been going on at leastsince I was a small child, and that was over 20 years ago in the age of magnetic tape and "push-play-and-record". The fact is in this day and age, the RIAA has successfully demonized the sharing of music without their

If piracy is still rampant on P2P networks, and music sales are still down... doesn't that mean that more people are not buying the music that they claim on slashdot and elsewhere that they'd buy to support the band? What is going on with this? If most of the new music is so shitty you cannot buy a CD online for $12-$15 (sorry, most of the time claiming you're forced to pay $20 is bullshit with the internet) then why is piracy still rampant?

What you don't understand is the fact, that the price is not everything. People don't use p2p only because it's cheaper. They use it because they get much better service. Remember the times when people warned other people from using p2p because of the possible virus infections? Now you have to be careful when buying records!What record companies and RIAA don't get, is the quality of the service together with the available selection. Want yesterdays good music? Don't waste your time going to a music store, s

Unless... few P2P defenders want to admit that they really have no interest in paying for music that they could otherwise get for free.

Quite a lot of it, they don't. Say I download 100 albums and buy 3 of them. That's still a net gain for the record industry, because had I not been able to download anything, that money would have gone on a graphics card instead.

Look, I despise the RIAA as much as the next guy, but if you're downloading the music of a small band, you're not supporting them. No one will not

Everybody seems to be missing the point. The RIAA's problem is nothing to do with sales (although they claim it is) - the real problem is that everything is developing towards a system where the customers are in direct contact with the sellers. The RIAA represent middlemen, they desperately need to retain CONTROL of the artists and the means of distribution.

which is how I discovered Lacuna Coil, so that's almost certainly one more customer from rampant piracy

Yes, but is Lacuna Coil's gain of a customer at the expense of another band? You said earlier in your post that you'd put off buying a graphics card to buy music, but you've only got a finite amount of money to make purchases with, and eventually it's going to come down to another CD that you would have purchased, but won't because you can't justify spending more.

Music sales are not all that down. There was an article about a year ago in the LA Weekly about how total CD sales were up, but sales of the Top 10 or so CDs were down. This indicates a lot more depth to sales than the major labels want--people are buying CDs, but they're exposed to a lot more variety (possibly through filesharing) and so it's getting harder and harder to push a model where you sell enormous numbers of a small number of releases. I still buy CDs, but I usually g

Unless... few P2P defenders want to admit that they really have no interest in paying for music that they could otherwise get for free.

OK, I'll bite. First, I will point out that downloading music via P2P for personal use does not contravene the Canadian Copyright Act or any other Canadian law, so there is no issue of infringing on anyone's proprietary rights. Since the record companies are intent on asserting their rights to the fullest extent of the law (and beyond) I see absolutely no reason to grant the

Why should i pay for music?People have been making music since the dawn of time. Paying for it in little bite sized disks is a fairly new invention. If you dont want people to hear your music, then don't release it. The point of releasing music is to get other people to hear it. It is not to make money. especially in the internet age where you dont even have to go out and buy little plastic disks, which do have a real world cost.

What about the artists! they say... how will they get paid?my answer would be,

Oh yeah, and let's not forget "All the music today is shitty, so I download it and listen to it instead of buying it."

Most of today's music is shitty, so I don't listen to it. That translates directly into not buying it either. I have yet to hear shitty music as an excuse for downloading it, though. I have heard it used extensively as reason for not listening to it.

Modern "music" is so loaded with complete crap that I haven't listened to the radio regularly for about 5 years now. I may have spent as muc

Create a virus that installs a P2P client/server on each machine, and then randomly downloads and shares songs on the major P2P networks. Later, when they RIAA files a suit against a user, they can claim that it wasn't them, but the evil virus that shared these songs. Not only is it not the user's fault, but it's Microsoft's, as the unintentional sharing would have never happened without the security flaws!
Proverbial stone of dual avian slaying +2

I think what they're doing is commendable, and we all have to start somewhere. Nettwerk is home to many great artists, and Nettwerk has been very generous with their works, people and bands like my favorites, Sarah McLachlan, Barenaked Ladies, Dido, Chantal Kreviazuk, and many more. I've gotten lots of free Sarah McLachlan stuff over the 15 years I've been a fan, so my loyalty toward her and Nettwerk is pretty well cemented in stone. They've always been an independent label who have not exactly toed the RIAA party line.

Unfortunately, Sarah's albums are redistributed in the US by Arista, a (you guessed it!) Sony/BMG label. It's just speculation, but I'd guess that a contract has been signed and Nettwerk has no control over how Arista chooses to do so.

In Canada, they're released on the Nettwerk label, itself, and carry no copy protection. This, I can verify, as I have both releases.

Try ordering from Amazon.ca, eh. And while you're at it, drop a note to Arista, letting them know that you've done so.

Ok I admit I am not very well read up on what the RIAA actually does and maybe this is the wrong place to ask this question, but what does an individual record company gain from being a RIAA member? All I ever hear about RIAA involves lawsuits and similar activities. Do they actually provide anything to the individual record companies besides being a common lobby organization?

Well, one of the things they do is protect the copyrights of their members in areas where a collective approach is probably a better thing. For example, there's this "P2P piracy" epidemic at the moment, comprising of large numbers of people running programs that take rips of music from CDs and make them available to anyone on the network, without the need to pay royalties.

These networks do not focus on music from one particular publisher, but a great many, the vast majority (if not all) the RIAA members,

...because if the Canadians can secure their borders [kirotv.com] I'm sure that their newly elected government will step in with appropriate effective legislation that will take down the Evil Empire that is the RIAA.

I'll belive it when I see it.
At least this label is a hero (at least at face value):Nettwerk Music Group has agreed to pay the total expense of all legal fees as well as any fines should the family lose the case against the RIAA.
Given that these guys are the label for BareNaked Ladies, Avril Lavig

It is about time one of the record labels stood up and realized that what the RIAA is doing isn't protecting copyrights at all but is slowly eroding the music industry out from under them.Recently on Slashdot an article said the P2P sharing was still going strong. I'm not really all that surprised because when a group of people finds themselves underseige for some reason it doesn't usually make them stop what they are doing. Just ask the people who live in the Isreali West Bank!

one of the most unfortunate side effects of file sharing as a meaningful debate on the future of music in Canada as well as the best path for copyright reform is lost amid the cries of sharing, stealing, and private copying. We need a real discussion of music in Canada that goes beyond file sharing to include private copying, fair use, the limits on the use of DRM, the transparency of collectives, canadian content requirements in the Internet era, and support for the artists.

The pigopolists have been loud, but the rest of us are quietly not using our wallets. Perpetual copyrights and DRM are out of bounds and no one is going to support them.

It's very simple, really, people want their freedom. If you don't want me to share the music you publish, I don't want to buy it. I won't go for technological restrictions either. I'm not giving my money to people who would make sharing a crime. Music is supposed to be shared and it's supposed to be unifying.

...that the last CD I bought was a Nettwerk CD (Chimera by Delerium). It also seems it's one of the few labels that still pumps out interesting music. And yes, I downloaded three Delerium albums, two of which I bought eventually, and last one will probably buy very soon.

The one I bought was the enhanced version, the one that comes with a bonus disc with videos and some extra tracks. No DRM that I noticed. I ripped both with iTunes (mac) just fine. Well worth it's price.

Uses DRM schemes on their CD's. A Delerium CD was one of the few CD's I could not actually rip in Windows (riped beautifully in iTunes for Mac though). Perhaps Nettwerk feels a little more secure in their ability to prevent unwanted distribution, but they are right up their with the RIAA in terms of limiting individual rights when it comes to how a person wants to listen to the music they purchased. Good to know that they won't resort to suing customers for breaking DRM schemes.

I want to see a real fight between fairly matched opponents. I get the impression from this article and a couple others that the offer isn't just to pay the $4,500 which would be the easy way out.

If they can make the RIAA actually prove their case in court then this is worthwhile. If they just plan to cheaply exit by paying the extortion, then we all know which artist we should be downloading and sharing next.

IANAL but I believe that falls under legal precedence, so once a legal decision is made regarding one case, it is applied to all subsequent cases like it.

This is incorrect. Until a decision is rendered by an appellate court for whatever district the trial (lower) court is in, other judges within that district are free to ignore, modify, adopt etc. the others ruling. Even then a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (CA) isn't bind on the 2nd Circuit. Only a Supreme Court decision is binding a

However, it's not that uncommon for judges to cite precident from other districts (provided it's on a case that's not some hot button issue, i.e. anything abortion). The judges may not be beholden to it, but a reasonable judge would take it into consideration.

Whenever someone stands up to say "No!" you're going to complain because they've only done it once?

This sets a precedent. Not to mention endears me to that company in particular. I may well go get a list of artists under that label and go buy something just to support them. Or send in a donation saying "Thank you."

Perhaps Nettwerk Music Group will make the same offer to anybody accused of downloading their music. Perhaps others will join in.

Also, paying the legal expenses is HUGE. Now they can get a big time lawyer, and not have to worry about how they can afford it. Lawyers are not cheap. This is why most people settle. Are you really going to pay $6000 to a lawyer to maybe win, or $5000 to the RIAA to make them go away?

But now the money is not theirs, they will fight, and I pray they will win. But either way, this was a Really Good Thing.

$6000? You MUST be joking. Defense like this would cost in the US, with just a regular "good" lawyer, $20,000-$40,000. Makes that $5,000 settlement REALLY attractive. Decent attorney here in New York is $200-400/hr. The PARALEGALS here are $120 an hour at big firms.

Fees are not really that big of a problem. If you win your case, you may be able to recover fees from the other party under 17 USC 505. But honestly, so many of these suits are open-and-shut in RIAA's favor that it wouldn't make sense for defendants to rely on that, since the defendants probably won't win.

I'd love to purchase Nettwerk Music Group's products, but their Websites used to be unprofessional, poorly designed, rarely worked properly and have been a pain in the ass for years. Your comment gave me the urge to go take a look. Nice new site.Considering what Nettwerk's espousing, I have a lot more respect for them now. I'll see if I can find another way of supporting them that doesn't involve their Web-based marketing/sales efforts, like going and buying a CD or two, or using iTunes... As Sarah McLachl

Publicity Stunt? No question and thats the idea. It gets publicity to the fact that not everyone in the industry agrees with the RIAA. And even though paying for one person isn't a big deal to the RIAA, the reasons behind it is to the rest of the people.

They're going to pay the legal fees and fines for one person and they've "joined the fight"?

They could very well be testing the water, you know. Not many of the families being sued (sorry, extorted) by the RIAA have the resources backing them to even make it possible to stand up to them without going bankrupt in the process, even if they win. Make the RIAA start losing, you start setting precedent. Start setting precedent, the cases start getting thrown out before there is a trial because there's not anything left to back them up. If you can make them start losing, then it doesn't take a lot to end the whole thing; but it takes someone willing and able to stand up and fight back. Publicity stunt? Certainly. Exactly what's needed? Definately.

Absolutely. The thing is, nobody has really stood up with a solid legal argument as of yet. The only real legal arguments used against RIAA cases has been "It wasn't me, it was my son" or other weak crap like that. These may work for the individual cases, but they don't really put a dent in the RIAA's case. If Nettwerk does this, they're going to do this with a big lawyer and they are going to battle the issues at the root of the argument. If there is a legal precedent set in court, it will do a lot more damage to the RIAA's campaign against it's own users. In law, precedent is the big battle.

If they want to join the fight, then they should use their clout
and cash to take a more substantive swipe at the RIAA than just a
tiny, ineffective gesture.

Although they have some GREAT artists signed (Delirium, Guster,
BT, Paul van Dyk, and of course their "superstars" BNL and Sarah
McLachlan), most of whom have a good understanding of technology
and its role in music in the modern world... Nettwerk really
doesn't have that much sway in the industry overall.

You can almost think of it more as an artist collective than a
real "label".

As for helping just one out of thousands of victims of the RIAA's
SLAPP tactics.. Yes, I agree this counts as little more than a
PR stunt. But not a self-promoting PR stunt; rather, it attempts
to show that "the music industry" doesn't exist as a uniformly-evil
and luddite monolithic entity. It shouts the message "go ahead and
boycott Sony, but you can still buy new music without
selling your soul to Rosen (Somehow, "Mitch Bainwol" doesn't have
the same love-to-hate-him feel as Hilary Rosen...).

You can almost think of it more as an artist collective than a real "label".

You can almost think of it as what a real "label" will become as more artists break away from the coporate megaliths that form the RIAA and embrace distribution networks that let them retain some control over their music, not seem like part of an "evil empire", and make more money while charging their fans less.

The true damage done to the RIAA in this isn't that someone is standing up to them, it's that a record label is standing up to them and saying "You are not representing the best interests of the Artists.".
This is a major broadside to the spin and misdirection campaign they have going (i.e. We sue sharers because they hurt the artists! We act for the artists! We're being the good guy fighting evil!). Now, one of "the fold" has stood out, and actually declared "You are stating you represent us, but in fact, you're acting way out of line and going contrary to our real wishes.".
The crux being, this record label is an agent for an artist mentioned in a case by the RIAA, and yet both the label and the artist are explicit in not wanting the RIAA to go ahead with the action. The RIAA are doing so. Thus they lose the moral high ground they've been claiming so long to the general public, and showing themselves blatantly to NOT be following the wishes of the artists AND their own members. Which really cuts out a fair portion of their reason for being.

If someone like Sarah McLauglan gets up on the stand and says "File sharing actually helps my sales,"
it will also blow a big hole in the RIAA's legal case. Even if Nettwork only send the signal implicitly by helping to pay the legal fees and filing an amicus curae brief with the court, it'll help.

Of course, the implicit threat that they could do it a second (and third and....) time will also put a big crimp in the RIAA's style.

If someone like Sarah McLauglan gets up on the stand and says "File sharing actually helps my sales," it will also blow a big hole in the RIAA's legal case.

No, it wouldn't. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether it "helps" the artist, or helps the publisher (which is not the same thing), or not. Even if you extrapolate that all artists are helped because Sarah McLauglan is (huh?), the argument is irrelevent.

Nobody is saying that copyright infringement isn't copyright infringement.
And nobody is saying that P2P is a wonderful thing for the artists.
What they are saying is that litigation is not the solution to the problem; its simply adding another problem to the existing one (creating a wave of extremely bad publicity for the musci industry when they know that their sales slump is simply due to people already purchasing alternate products with their cash).
When they find a suitable solution to the problem, the

> Paying the legal expenses and fines of one Texas teen isn't joining the fight. It's a publicity> stunt. If they want to join the fight, then they should use their clout and cash to take a more> substantive swipe at the RIAA than just a tiny, ineffective gesture.It is a very big step. RIAA suing a kid is not newsworthy. A Canadian company standing up againstan American organisation to protect an American kid *is* news. Copyright law will not be fixed untilthe masses realise how bad the situation i

Yes, this ONE event allows them to 'enter the fight.' Assuming, based on your comment, you have zero understanding of legal decisions, I will try to give you an idea of why this specific instance was necessary for this company to enter the fight.

The RIAA is suing person X because person X downloaded songs owned by the RIAA AND by company Y. So, the RIAA is taking unauthorized legal action on behalf of company Y, without the permission of company Y. Company Y feels this is NOT the direction it wants to take with unauthorized downloading and is thus suing the RIAA and also agreeing to pay for person X's legal defenses in the fight against the RIAA.

The court system can only make decisions in existing disputes.. so until there's a proper existing dispute, company Y cannot really get involved.

So yes, company Y is definitely now involved in the 'fight' against the RIAA's heavy-handed legal tactics... Tactics which company Y (and most likely many other smaller labels) do NOT approve.

So, the RIAA is taking unauthorized legal action on behalf of company Y, without the permission of company Y. Company Y feels this is NOT the direction it wants to take with unauthorized downloading and is thus suing the RIAA and also agreeing to pay for person X's legal defenses in the fight against the RIAA.

So can't the RIAA just make this go away by dropping their claim of infringement against that one song? Seems such a quick exit for them that I'm surprised they haven't done it already.

"I don't see it making a dent in the effect the RIAA's terrorist tactics have."

I remember when/.ers said the RIAA should sue individual copyright infringers, instead of Kazaa, Limewire, etc., back before there were individual lawsuits. Now someone suing someone based on reasonable evidence that they are commtting copyright infringement is a terrorist activity. yeah, ok, whatever.

It actually says "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies". What exactly does that mean? Could it be that Nettwerk is distribuited by a RIAA member (BMG / Sony) rather than beign a member themselves?

"So, what are the ramifications of a portion of the RIAA suing itself?"

It's not the RIAA suing itself. The RIAA is a trade group, of which many record companies are members.

Think of it more like a doctor suing the AMA.

Anyway, this isn't too uncommon. I knew a guy who ran a guy who ran an indie record company. He said on more than one occasion that although he was a member of the RIAA (for all the benefits that joining provided), the RIAA did not speak for him.